Discussion Title: Should the EU introduce a carbon tax?

1. The EU should introduce a carbon tax.
1.1. Con: A carbon tax would make European goods and services less competitive in international markets.
1.1.1. Pro: Having a higher price for EU goods and services may [reduce their market share or lead to a reduction in profit margins](https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate/State-and-Trend-Report-2015.pdf) for EU businesses \(pg 53\).
1.1.1.1. Con: A carbon tax is [designed to shift production towards low carbon activities](https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate/State-and-Trend-Report-2015.pdf). If this occurs, it should not lead to a significant increase in the price of EU goods and services \(pg 54\).
1.1.1.2. Con: If pricing levels rise, concerns about competitiveness can be addressed through political engagement and targeted policies \([Executive Briefing, 3](http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/759561467228928508/CPLC-Competitiveness-print2.pdf)\)
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: These policies can include dedicating carbon revenues to regional economic development and support to ease the transition of businesses and sectors that compete internationally. For example, the EU ETS provides free allocation of allowances to businesses in sectors exposed to carbon leakage \([Executive Briefing, 4](http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/759561467228928508/CPLC-Competitiveness-print2.pdf)\).
1.1.2. Con: If this is true, the EU can use revenue from the carbon tax to protect industries which feel the worst effects.
1.1.2.1. Con: This would defeat the point of the carbon tax, as it would disincentivize these industries from shifting away from carbon-intensive activities or practices.
1.1.2.1.1. Con: The EU does not have to sustain the carbon-intensive activities of these industries in order to support them. Instead, it can provide funding and support conditional on shifting towards non-carbon practices.
1.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: If the EU provides funding conditional on shifting towards non-carbon practices this is likely to significantly increase the bargaining power of the EU in its discussions with companies over carbon-intensive activities.
1.1.3. Con: A [study](https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1072#tocto1n4) found that countries implementing carbon-energy taxation to have had only small impacts on overall economic performance, even for those energy-intensive industries that tend to be impacted most.
1.1.3.1. Con: This may be a by-product of [pricing carbon too low](https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1072#tocto1n4), and hence preventing effective action against climate change.
1.1.3.2. Pro: A [study](https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1072#tocto1n4) of European countries found that although there was some negative effect for energy-intensive industries due to the carbon tax, due to many exemptions the burden has remained modest and, where revenues have been recycled to lower employers’ costs for social security contributions, remained generally below 2% of gross operating surplus.
1.1.4. Con: Carbon pricing can improve competitiveness for EU goods and services in international markets.
1.1.4.1. Pro: Effective environmental policies can contribute to [developing long-run international competitiveness](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/210741468340179227/International-trade-and-green-growth) in certain industries which rely on natural resources \(pg 9\).
1.1.4.2. Pro: As carbon prices spread, concerns about competitiveness should [subside](https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-pricing-popular), and losses in emissions-intensive production may be counterbalanced by gains in growing low-carbon sectors.
1.1.4.2.1. Pro: The EU's [soft power](https://europe.unc.edu/iron-curtain/power-and-politics-the-prisoners-dilemma/the-eu-and-soft-power/) has set it apart in today's political landscape as a global leader and role model. It thus has a moral duty to set a positive example.
1.1.4.2.1.1. Pro: The US and EU have a [history](https://www.energy.gov/ia/international-affairs-initiatives/us-eu-energy-council) of collaboration on energy and sustainability. The US is likely to match the efforts that the EU is making, as it has in the past. This will likely be an extremely beneficial collaboration.
1.1.4.2.1.1.1. Pro: The US, like the EU, has massive potential in terms of revenue generation that can be reinvested for climate change efforts.
1.1.4.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: According to a study conducted by SIPA, scenarios hypothesizing carbon taxes to be $14/ton, $50/ton, and $73/ton were projected to increase government revenue in the US by about $60, $180, and $250 billion in each year of the 2020s \([Kaufman, 4](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\)
1.1.4.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: If a carbon tax was adopted in the US, the [tax revenue](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/energy-and-environmental-implications-carbon-tax-united-states) could range from $617 million to as much as $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years.
1.1.4.2.1.1.2. Pro: Ten states in the US have active [carbon pricing programs](https://www.c2es.org/document/us-state-carbon-pricing-policies/), while seven more are [considering](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112018/state-carbon-pricing-tax-fee-climate-change-washington-oregon-new-jersey-virginia-hawaii-massachusetts-new-york) implementing such policies. Given these internal trends, an external push \(by the EU\) will increase the likelihood of implementing such a reform throughout the US.
1.1.4.2.1.1.3. Con: The current US government under the leadership of President Trump has significant disagreements with the EU, especially with regards to climate change and sustainability.
1.1.4.2.1.1.3.1. Pro: President Trump has [referred](https://time.com/5508259/trump-climate-change-defense-department/) to climate change as a hoax perpetuated by the 'Chinese'.
1.1.4.2.1.1.3.2. Pro: In a break from America's historic partners, President Trump [withdrew](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/trump-withdraws-paris-agreement/579733/) the United States from the [Paris Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement).
1.1.4.2.1.2. Pro: Climate change efforts are most effective when carried out on a [global scale](https://www.edf.org/climate/global-climate-solutions). The side-effect of this responsibility would be that the world will be one step closer to moving towards this goal.
1.1.4.2.1.2.1. Pro: The EU is likely to set a positive precedent for the rest of the world by instating the carbon tax, as it has done on environmental reform [in the past.](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621818/EPRS_BRI\(2018\)621818_EN.pdf)
1.1.4.2.1.3. Pro: The EU has been a prominent player on an international level in climate change politics via the process initiated by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change \(UNFCCC\) which provided a non-binding framework for further international negotiations on climate change \([Damro, 180](https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/12628203/The_EU_and_Climate_Change_Policy.pdf)\).
1.1.4.2.1.3.1. Pro: As a party to the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCC, the EU has successfully interacted with non-members and international organisations, persuading several developing countries to join the effort to combat climate change and adopt EU standards \([Keleman, 18](http://aei.pitt.edu/33075/1/kelemen._r._daniel.pdf)\).
1.1.4.2.1.3.2. Pro: By abandoning current plans for a carbon tax, the EU is likely to set a negative precedent for developing countries which often follow the EU's lead in the fight against climate change.
1.1.4.2.2. Pro: [Internal carbon pricing](https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-indian-companies-use-carbon-pricing-planning-tool), even in less developed countries, has successfully emerged as a popular tool that allows companies to reduce emissions and channel investments towards cleaner, more-efficient technologies.
1.1.4.2.2.1. Pro: [Microsoft](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2017/11/14/microsoft-pledges-cut-carbon-emissions-75-percent-2030/) assigns a carbon fee to its internal business units, and collects proceeds in a fund that can be tapped to help pay for additional investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy purchases and the launch of new product lines that will help the company to gain market share over competitors.
1.1.4.2.2.2. Pro: Dutch health, materials, and nutrition company [Royal DSM](https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2019/03/07-19-dsm-sets-science-based-reduction-targets-for-emissions.html) applies a 50€/ton internal carbon price when reviewing large investment decisions. This helps to [“future proof”](http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/06/01/dutch-company-royal-dsm-prices-carbon-to-future-proof-its-business) the company, as it helps to spot energy saving opportunities at an early stage while raising awareness inside the organization.
1.1.4.3. Pro: Carbon pricing helps to [accelerate](http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/759561467228928508/CPLC-Competitiveness-print2.pdf) modernization and productivity improvements that enhance rather than harm competitiveness, as firms operating at the technology frontier seize new market opportunities \(pg 4\).
1.1.4.4. Pro: [Sweden](https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/blogs/2018/11/6/the-swedish-experience-of-carbon-taxation-get-a-fossil-free-beer-or-carton-of-milk) has the highest carbon price in the world, but both its industrial sector and GDP have increased while absolute carbon emissions have decreased. A major cause of Sweden's success is reduced imports of fossil fuels and better use of domestic renewable energy sources.
1.1.4.4.1. Con: Sweden's shift to non-carbon reliance is not the overnight result of a carbon tax, but rather the [byproduct](https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-europe-en-formation-2009-2-page-157.htm) of a two-decade long sustainable development program enacted by the Swedish Government.
1.1.5. Con: There is little evidence to suggest that a price on carbon is a determinant variable in whether a company succeeds or fails.
1.1.5.1. Pro: [Data](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-impacts-of-the-climate-change-levy-on-business-evidence-from-microdata/) from the United Kingdom production census shows that the introduction of the [Climate Change Levy](https://www.gov.uk/green-taxes-and-reliefs/climate-change-levy) \(an energy tax\) had a positive impact on energy intensity, but no detectable negative effects on economic performance or plant exit.
1.1.5.2. Pro: [An impact study](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/competitiveness-impacts-of-the-german-electricity-tax_5js0752mkzmv-en) of the German tax on electricity implemented in 1999 on firms in the manufacturing sector showed no deterioration in the competitiveness of firms \([pg.2](http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/759561467228928508/CPLC-Competitiveness-print2.pdf)\).
1.1.5.3. Pro: A study of British Columbia’s carbon tax found limited impacts on industrial competitiveness, with the exception of two companies in the cement sector that lost market share \([pg.2](http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/759561467228928508/CPLC-Competitiveness-print2.pdf)\).
1.1.6. Pro: Studies of the relationship between environmental regulation and productivity have found empirical evidence that environmental regulation hampers productivity which can [impact competitiveness](https://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/06/what-determines-international.html?m=1) in international markets; this evidence can be extended to carbon tax policy as well.
1.1.6.1. Pro: Gollop and Roberts \([1983](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261170)\) found that sulfur dioxide emission regulations in the United States reduced productivity growth in 56 fossil-fuelled electricity utilities by an estimated 44 percent during the 1973–1979 period.
1.1.6.1.1. Con: Given the [innovations](https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4126) in regulating sulphur dioxide emissions over the past 3 decades, the findings of the study are likely to be outdated and inapplicable to the status quo.
1.1.6.2. Pro: Gray and Shadbegian \([2003](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069603000317)\) found a link between higher pollution-abatement operating costs and lower productivity in 116 pulp and paper plants.
1.1.6.3. Pro: Greenstone, List, and Syverson \([2012](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273769970_The_impacts_of_environmental_regulations_on_competitiveness)\) conducted a large plant-level study, with 1.2 million plant observations from the 1972–1993 Annual Survey of Manufacturers. They found that total factor productivity \(TFP\) declines by 4.8 percent for polluting plants in strictly regulated counties relative to weakly or unregulated counties.
1.1.7. Pro: Introduction of a carbon tax forces higher prices on products directly or indirectly by increasing operating \(factor\) costs, weakening the [current account position](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account_\(balance_of_payments\)) of the country. [Demand for exports would be expected to fall, while import demand would be expected to rise](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/12942/what-is-the-relationship-between-inflation-and-imports-exports), with import prices relatively more attractive following the unilateral adoption of the tax. This leads to a reduced ability of domestic firms to compete for domestic and foreign market share \([p. 72](https://www.cbd.int/financial/fiscalenviron/g-fiscaltaxes-oecd.pdf)\).
1.1.7.1. Pro: The results of a study of the cost increases from a US$100 per tonne of carbon tax on energy intensive industries in selected OECD countries indicate a cost increase varying between 1.2% and 5.2% by country, with further vatiations according to sector \(Table 3, [pg.72](https://www.cbd.int/financial/fiscalenviron/g-fiscaltaxes-oecd.pdf)\).
1.1.7.2. Con: Imports to the EU could be subject to the default tariff i.e. pay carbon tax upon entry. Exemptions could be granted when imports are from countries with an equivalent tax at source.
1.1.8. Con: Concerns about competitiveness will diminish as the geographical coverage of carbon pricing spreads \([Executive Briefing, 3](http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/759561467228928508/CPLC-Competitiveness-print2.pdf)\)
1.1.8.1. Con: This presupposes that the EU will set a precedent on this policy that will be followed by the rest of the world; this is unlikely to occur.
1.1.8.1.1. Pro: The EU has [ceded](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/eu-leaders-fail-show-united-front-climate-change-190621104246677.html) ground as a pioneer and trend-setter of climate change policies to other countries such as China.
1.1.9. Con: The economic losses of reduction in competition could be lower than the potential economic losses from climate change.
1.2. Pro: The EU has a moral obligation to reduce carbon emissions in order to mitigate climate change.
1.2.1. Pro: Climate change poses a [major threat to human health](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/04/health/climate-change-threatening-human-health-scli-intl/index.html). Every person has a moral responsibility to limit the harm they cause to others.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Increased carbon emissions have had negative consequences for human health.
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: Reduced air quality can [cause and worsen](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455574/) incidences of diseases such as asthma, rhinosinusitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory tract infections.
1.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: Air pollution in India [causes](https://qz.com/1489086/air-pollution-in-india-caused-1-2-million-deaths-last-year/) 1.2 million deaths every year.
1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Environmentalists have [stated](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/world/asia/india-air-pollution.html) that India's recent efforts to curb air pollution in urban centers is likely to save numerous lives.
1.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: For each increase of 1 degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about [a thousand additional deaths](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html) and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.
1.2.1.1.2. Pro: Climate change is responsible for the [spread of diseases](https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/15/effect-climate-change-disease/) to regions that were previously untouched. Malaria, dengue fever, and the West Nile virus may soon reach Northern hemisphere countries.
1.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: As the world gets warmer, ticks, mosquitoes, and other disease vectors are expanding their habitats and are able to spread disease for longer before cold weather shuts them down for a season. Because of this, diseases like Lyme disease, Dengue, and Zika spread by these pests [tripled in the US](https://www.businessinsider.com/tick-and-mosquito-diseases-tripled-cdc-2018-5) between 2004 and 2016.
1.2.1.1.3. Con: For carbon dioxide to have a serious effect on human [health](https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/carbon-dioxide), exposure has to be at a high level or for a sustained period of time \(and usually within a confined space\). Given that there is enough oxgygen on earth to last for [millions](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazon-fires-do-not-threaten-earths-oxygen-expert-says/) of years, CO2 in unlikely to displace it sufficiently to cause such an effect in the general population.
1.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.2.1.
1.2.3. Con: The EU's moral obligation could be met by any policy that reduces carbon emissions, including its current policies.
1.2.3.1. Con: Even if that is true, a carbon tax is necessary for the EU to enact other climate change policies. Hence the EU's moral obligation to enact a carbon tax stands.
1.2.3.1.1. Pro: A carbon tax can raise revenue that can be used for other climate change mitigation efforts.
1.2.3.1.1.1. Pro: More than $28.3 billion in government carbon revenues are currently collected each year in 40 countries and another 16 states or provinces around the world. Of those revenues, 27% \($7.8 billion\) is used to subsidize “green” spending in energy efficiency or renewable energy \([pg.2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302531)\).
1.2.3.1.1.1.1. Con: The largest share overall – 36% \($10.1 billion\) – of carbon revenues \($28.3 billion\) is returned to corporate or individual taxpayers through paired tax cuts or direct rebates \([pg.2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302531)\).
1.2.3.1.1.2. Pro: Taxes applied to the emission of greenhouse gases or to the sale of carbon-intensive fuels raised about $21.7 billion globally in 2013, about three times the amount raised from [cap and trade systems](https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works) \([p. 3](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0301421516302531?token=4C8B2CA47ADBAF6583A325E573AAD2F908A5561C05D75FC49115B0B1BF66D9F446CF5A5D7232B40B41BFC68D66567D58)\).
1.2.3.1.1.2.1. Con: The cited study also revealed that a much larger proportion of the revenue generated from cap-and-trade systems goes into the funding of green technologies, than revenue generated from carbon tax systems \([p. 60](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0301421516302531?token=4C8B2CA47ADBAF6583A325E573AAD2F908A5561C05D75FC49115B0B1BF66D9F446CF5A5D7232B40B41BFC68D66567D58)\).
1.2.3.1.1.2.2. Con: As [more countries](https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works) adopt cap-and-trade systems - as China did nationwide in 2017 - the revenue generated from these systems is likely to significantly increase with time.
1.2.3.1.1.3. Con: While a carbon tax could raise up to [$2.2 trillion](https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-tax-basics/) over a ten year period, the world would need to find [$50 trillion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report/#5513e96c51e2) in order to stop climate change. As such, carbon tax is not an effective finance solution.
1.2.3.1.1.4. Pro: Taxing negative externalities are a benefit to society even before tax money is spent assuming welfare optimisation and that deadweight loss is higher than implementation costs.
1.2.3.1.1.5. Con: There is no guarantee that the EU would choose to use the revenue for climate change mitigation efforts. [72% of carbon tax revenues worldwide](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302531) \(US $15.6 billion\) are refunded or used in general funds.
1.2.3.1.1.5.1. Con: The EU's current actions suggest that it would use at least some of the revenue generated to invest in green technologies.
1.2.3.1.1.5.1.1. Pro: In 2019 the European Commission [announced](https://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2019/02/european-commission-plough-eu10bn-green-technology) it will invest €10 billion into green technologies.
1.2.3.1.1.5.1.2. Pro: The European Commission has [publicly committed](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6543_en.htm) to having a climate neutral economy by 2050; this will [require investment in clean energy solutions of €300 billion](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/european-union-aims-to-be-first-carbon-neutral-major-economy-by-2050/).
1.2.3.1.1.5.2. Con: The EU doesn't need to use the [revenue](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/pigovian-tax/) for the policy to bring welfare.
1.2.3.1.1.5.3. Pro: Carbon tax revenues are often refunded to the taxpayer in an effort to build political support for a carbon tax.
1.2.3.1.1.5.3.1. Pro: Just over half of the funds from [Alberta’s carbon levy](https://www.pembina.org/pub/price-on-pollution-carbon-taxes) go directly back to helping Albertans offset its impact, through small business tax cuts, household rebates, and assistance to Indigenous communities. About 60% of Albertans receive a full rebate of $300 to $495 to help offset costs associated with the carbon levy.
1.2.3.1.1.5.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.1.1.1.1.
1.2.3.1.1.5.3.3. Pro: Canada has used the majority of the revenue from a carbon tax to give Canadians [a refund on their tax bills](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing-carbon-emissions.html).
1.2.3.1.1.5.3.4. Pro: British Colombia returns revenue from its carbon tax to the public via [income tax cuts](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_british_columbia_gained_by_putting_a_price_on_carbon).
1.2.3.1.1.5.3.5. Pro: Mexico and Chile use the revenue from their carbon taxes to [fund social programs](https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5N0MW46W20140404).
1.2.3.1.1.5.4. Con: [50% of the revenue](https://www.pembina.org/pub/price-on-pollution-carbon-taxes) raised from Alberta's carbon tax is reinvested in green infrastructure, coal phase-out, energy efficiency and investment in renewable energy.
1.2.3.1.1.5.4.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.1.1.5.3.1.
1.2.3.1.1.6. Pro: It was estimated that between 2015 and 2025 an EU wide carbon tax would have raised [€150 billion.](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Bowen-policy-brief-2015.pdf)
1.2.3.1.1.6.1. Pro: The EU currently only [spends](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36368792) 3 billion euros a year on research on the environment and climate-related projects. A carbon tax could increase the funds devoted to these projects substantially.
1.2.3.2. Pro: The EU's current climate change policies are sufficiently reducing the EU's carbon emissions.
1.2.3.2.1. Pro: The EU adopted the [EU Adaptation Strategy](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation_en). This policy involves anticipating the adverse effects of climate change and taking appropriate action to prevent or minimise the damage they can cause.
1.2.3.2.1.1. Con: Adaptation efforts only create [political complacency](https://philarchive.org/archive/DOACCAv1) in the battle against climate change, as they reduce the perceived cost of not reducing carbon emissions.
1.2.3.2.1.1.1. Pro: Adaptation efforts can be concentrated in areas with crucial voter bases to reduce opposition to inaction on climate change, hence dampening the affects of electoral accountability.
1.2.3.2.2. Pro: The EU finances low-carbon energy demonstration projects from the sale of emission certificates. Special support is included in the Commission's [proposal](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en) for a 2030 climate and energy policy framework for [Carbon Capture and Storage](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund/ccs_en).
1.2.3.2.2.1. Con: This project is limited to small and medium enterprises which are in need of starting capital. The [largest](https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/100-companies-responsible-71-ghg-emissions/) emitters of carbon are also the largest firms in the industry.
1.2.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: Large firms can raise capital through other means and are not dependent on funding from such sources.
1.2.3.2.2.1.2. Con: The relationship between disclosure of carbon emissions and firm size has a positive and significant effect on the carbon emissions disclosure. Larger firms have more chances and greater willingness to conduct carbon emission disclosure at a much more appropriate level than small firms \([p. 5](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2483/pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: Larger firms are very vulnerable to higher pressure from the community and stakeholders, so they have a greater tendency to perform a higher level of carbon emissions disclosure to make the firms seem more legitimate in accordance with norms and values, based on applicable provisions regulated by the government \([pg.11](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2483/pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.3. Con: A carbon tax sends a clear market signal to reduce carbon emissions which has not occurred with the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme.
1.2.3.2.3.1. Pro: Despite the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme being in operation for over a decade, there is [little evidence](https://corporateeurope.org/en/environment/2015/10/eu-emissions-trading-5-reasons-scrap-ets) to support the fact that the ETS has led to a reduction in carbon emissions.
1.2.3.2.3.1.1. Pro: The ETS has not led to a reduction in carbon emissions as the price of carbon has [remained too low](https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-will-reformed-eu-emissions-trading-system-raise-carbon-prices).
1.2.3.2.3.2. Pro: The EU's ETS has been used politically to undermine other climate and emissions control policies.
1.2.3.2.3.2.1. Pro: The EU's Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive was [modified](https://corporateeurope.org/en/environment/2015/10/eu-emissions-trading-5-reasons-scrap-ets) to exclude power stations and industrial plants, as these were already covered by the ETS.
1.2.3.2.3.2.2. Pro: The EU's Energy Taxation Directive was [abandoned](https://corporateeurope.org/en/environment/2015/10/eu-emissions-trading-5-reasons-scrap-ets) for fear of affecting carbon prices under the ETS.
1.2.3.2.3.3. Con: The EU's carbon emissions [have fallen](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-trends-6/assessment-2) in the decade since the Emissions Trading Scheme began operating.
1.2.3.2.3.3.1. Con: There is little evidence that emissions trading caused these reductions. Electricity generation accounts for the majority of emissions covered by the ETS, but reductions in this sector are largely the result of other environmental policies, notably feed-in tariffs and green certificates \([pg.27](http://www.cdcclimat.com/IMG/pdf/14-10_cdc_climat_r_wp_14-17_power_sector_in_the_eu_ets-2.pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: Analysis of economy-wide drivers of changing levels of carbon emissions has shown that reductions in ETS sectors can be explained almost entirely by a combination of increases in renewable energy, the economic downturn post-2008, improved energy efficiency, and fuel switching \(from coal to gas\) in response to other policies and economic variables \([pg.29](http://www.cdcclimat.com/IMG/pdf/13-10_cdc_climat_r_wp_13-15_assessing_the_factors_behing_co2_emissions_changes.pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.3.4. Pro: The Emissions Trading System is susceptible to fraud.
1.2.3.2.3.4.1. Pro: According to the EU Court of Auditors, the financial side of the ETS remains under-regulated \(pt 91, [pg. 48](https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR15_06/SR15_06_EN.pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.3.4.2. Pro: The legal definition of emission allowances is not sufficiently clear \([pg. 27](https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR15_06/SR15_06_EN.pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.3.4.3. Pro: There is poor cooperation between the Commission and national financial regulators \([pg.26](https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR15_06/SR15_06_EN.pdf)\).
1.2.3.2.3.4.4. Pro: A VAT fraud on the EU ETS cost the European Union [€5 billion](https://www.france24.com/en/20160503-france-trial-multi-billion-carbon-emissions-trading-fraud-opens-paris).
1.2.3.2.3.5. Con: The EU's ETS is currently in the process of [being revised](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/climate-change/reform-eu-ets/) to correct the large surplus of emission allowances which are currently leading to a low carbon price.
1.2.3.2.3.5.1. Pro: The [revised ETS](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/revision_en) is set to kick in from 2021 for a ten year period to allow the EU to meet its emission targets for 2030.
1.2.3.2.3.6. Pro: The European Emissions Trading System [only covers 45%](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en) of the EU's carbon emissions.
1.2.3.2.4. Con: The European Union currently does not have a tax on aviation fuel, even though aviation [causes 5% of global warming](https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/legal-obstacles-no-barrier-introducing-aviation-fuel-tax-europe-say-experts).
1.2.3.2.4.1. Pro: Pollution from aviation in Europe has increased [by around 10%](https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/climate-change) between 2014 and 2017, from 3.6% of the total greenhouse gases in the EU to 13.4%.
1.2.3.2.5. Pro: Many EU member states already have carbon taxes.
1.2.3.2.5.1. Pro: [Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Europe) already have implemented carbon taxes.
1.2.3.2.5.1.1. Pro: A Europe-wide carbon tax set by the EU would be worse than nationally set carbon taxation systems.
1.2.3.2.5.2. Con: Given the [integration of European Union countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union) - it is unlikely that these carbon taxes are effective.
1.2.3.2.5.2.1. Pro: Carbon taxes are [most effective](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/carbon-pricing-bowen_briefingNote.pdf) when they are wide-spread so polluters cannot move their operations to other countries.
1.2.3.2.5.2.1.1. Con: Cost migration is quite costly and logistically difficult, which already deters companies from making the move to other countries. According to a [survey](https://www.bain.com/insights/making-the-move-to-low-cost-countries-hbr/), over two-thirds of companies in the manufacturing sector have no significant cost-migration initiatives.
1.2.3.2.6. Con: A carbon tax is would reduce the need for more expensive climate change policies.
1.2.3.2.6.1. Pro: There is consensus in the scientific and economic community that a [carbon tax](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/economists-consensus-on-climate-change/) is the most efficient policy against climate change
1.2.4. Con: The EU has a number of moral obligations \(including duties to its own citizens, obligations to those in poverty and refugees from global violence\). It should try and prioritize those efforts where it can make the most difference.
1.2.4.1. Pro: According to a European Social Survey \(ESS\), respondents from across Europe in the countries included in the survey [are inclined](https://energypost.eu/europeans-not-worried-about-climate/) to think that there is little they can do on a personal level to mitigate climate change, and that they do not expect others in the world or governments to take effective action against climate change.
1.2.4.1.1. Con: Nearly nine in ten [believe](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en) it is important for their national government to set targets to increase renewable energy use and provide support for improving energy efficiency by 2030.
1.2.4.1.2. Con: The vast majority \(79%\) also [agree](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en) that more public financial support should be given to the transition to clean energies, even if this means reducing fossil fuel subsidies.
1.2.4.1.2.1. Pro: 92% of EU citizens [see](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en) climate change as a serious problem and 74% see it as a "very serious" problem.
1.2.4.2. Con: The best means to discharge its moral obligation towards protecting the well-being of its citizens is for the EU to combat climate change.
1.2.4.2.1. Pro: Citizens of the European Union are [also affected by climate change](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/how_en).
1.2.4.2.1.1. Pro: A group of families from five European countries have moved to [sue](https://www.dw.com/en/families-hit-by-climate-change-sue-the-eu/a-43933608) the EU over its negligence to protect citizens against the impacts climate change.
1.2.4.3. Pro: A carbon tax places a higher burden on those with [lower incomes](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/kolstad-carbon-tax-022814.html).
1.2.4.3.1. Pro: The poorest members of the general public will find it [too expensive](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/let-them-eat-carbon-credits/) to make the switch to non-carbon energy sources, putting a disproportionate burden on this group.
1.2.4.3.1.1. Con: The non-carbon energy sources continue to [decrease in price](https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019).
1.2.4.3.2. Con: The poorest people are also those most likely to be [impacted](http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~vecy/LitSurvey/Mendelsohn.06.pdf) by climate change. Hence it is incumbent upon governments to ensure their long-term welfare by enacting the carbon tax even if its leads to them shouldering a disproportionate burden in the short term. \(Mendelsohn, 2006, p. 16\)
1.2.4.3.3. Con: It has been [suggested](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/carbon-tax-could-benefit-poor-and-cut-emissions-esri-says-1.3915961) many times that the carbon tax income should be \(equally\) redistributed to all citizens to tackle this. This way it would even lower income inequality.
1.2.4.3.4. Con: Price and [substitution](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/substitution-effect.asp) are likely to help offset the hypothesized regressive nature of the carbon tax. This change in spending behaviour of consumers is a desirable outcome.
1.2.4.3.4.1. Pro: Behaviour which increases carbon emissions is akin to other socially desirable behaviour which may be dealt with via regressive taxation. For instance, while cigarette taxes impact poor households more than rich households, the reduction in smoking in poor households is actually a positive externality, as it improves their health outcomes.
1.2.4.3.4.2. Con: Lower-income families have less ability to make substitutions towards lower-carbon alternatives \([Policy Brief, 1](https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/publications/files/Carbon%20Pricing%2C%20Social%20Equity%20and%20Poverty%20Reduction.pdf)\)
1.2.4.3.4.2.1. Con: Canada has introduced a [model](https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-for-you-114671) whereby the taxpayer can claim a rebate on carbon tax - often larger than the amount they originally paid through the tax - which can help provide low income households with a financial incentive to move towards reduced carbon usage.
1.2.4.3.5. Pro: Lower income families spend a [disproportionate amount](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax) of their income on carbon-intensive goods and will thus be impacted most.
1.2.4.3.5.1. Con: The shift in traditional energy industries towards renewable sources due to the carbon tax is also likely to change the economic incentives of consumers who are most reliant on these industries.
1.2.4.3.5.1.1. Pro: The carbon tax significantly accelerates the shift away from coal and toward renewable electricity.
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.1. Pro: A carbon tax would result in coal production falling dramatically compared to the current policy scenario, between 28 and 84 percent by 2030 \([Kaufman, 4](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\) due to cost considerations. This deficit would need to be met by alternative energy sources.
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.1.1. Pro: A 1-8% increase in natural gas production in 2020 is projected \([Kaufman, 4](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\) to meet the deficit.
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.1.2. Pro: Renewable energy could become responsible for 30-40% of electricity generation by 2030 \([Kaufman, 4](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.2. Pro: The effects of a carbon tax on prices will be largest for energy produced by coal, followed by oil, then natural gas, due to the difference in carbon intensity of each fuel. This would significantly reduce the economic viability of utilizing each of these resources for energy production \([Gordon, 4](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.2.1. Pro: The imposition of a carbon tax in the UK has lead to a [significant decline in the use of coal](https://qz.com/1192753/a-carbon-tax-killed-coal-in-the-uk-natural-gas-is-next/).
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.2.1.1. Pro: In the UK, electricity produced from coal declined from [42% of total electricity generation in 2012 to 7% in 2017](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35912).
1.2.4.3.5.1.1.2.1.2. Pro: In January 2018, the UK has said that all coal-operated electricity generation plants will be [closed by 2025](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35912).
1.2.4.3.6. Con: Policies can be designed to minimize the financial impacts on low-income groups, while maintaining the incentive to reduce emissions.
1.2.4.3.6.1. Pro: The carbon revenues that governments can derive from carbon pricing can also be used to reduce poverty, over and above reducing the policy’s regressive impact on low-income groups \([Policy Brief, 8](https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/publications/files/Carbon%20Pricing%2C%20Social%20Equity%20and%20Poverty%20Reduction.pdf)\)
1.2.4.3.6.1.1. Pro: The Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office [estimated](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax) that a broad-based carbon tax starting at $25 per ton in 2017 and rising at 2 percent more than inflation would have raised $1 trillion over its first decade
1.2.4.3.6.1.2. Pro: Only 10% of carbon tax revenue would be required to ensure that low-income households receive as much in government rebates as they pay in higher price \([Kaufman, 6](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\)
1.2.4.3.7. Pro: One [prominent estimate](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax), developed by an interagency working group of the United States government, is that carbon dioxide emissions impose social costs of about $40 per metric ton, the brunt of which would be borne by lower-income households.
1.2.4.3.8. Con: Wealthier households will be disproportionately impacted.
1.2.4.3.8.1. Con: The impact on wealthier households is less worthy of our moral concern.
1.2.4.3.8.1.1. Pro: Wealthier households are in the best position to bear the impacts of this policy with losing access to any essential goods necessary for their livelihood. They are more likely to lose access to voluntary luxury goods, which is a negligible cost compared to a similar impact on the poorest households.
1.2.4.3.8.1.2. Con: According to the EU's [goals and values](https://europarlamentti.info/en/values-and-objectives/values/), the EU must treat everyone fairly and promote the well being of all its citizens. This includes wealthier households.
1.2.4.3.8.2. Con: Wealthier households are already disproportionately impacted by a host of other polices such as progressive taxation. If anything, these polices are likely to reduce income and wealth inequalities.
1.2.4.3.8.2.1. Pro: Income and wealth inequality reduction is one of the salient goals of any government.
1.2.4.3.8.3. Pro: Energy price increases also reduce the revenues of businesses; this impact is likely to disproportionately affect wealthier households \([Gordon, 6](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.8.3.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.1.1.1.1.
1.2.4.3.8.3.2. Pro: Industries most likely to be hit include electric power, fertilizer, cement and coal-related industries like mining and transportation. Lime, a key ingredient in the manufacture of cement, would see the highest cost increase at 15 percent.
1.2.4.3.8.4. Con: High-income households have benefited disproportionately from clean energy tax credits and subsidies. It is only fair that they bear this cost.
1.2.4.3.8.4.1. Pro: The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60% \([Borenstein, 1](https://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/papers/WP262.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.8.4.2. Pro: For the program aimed at electric vehicles, the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits \([Borenstein, 1](https://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/papers/WP262.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.8.5. Con: What matters is not the disproportion. If people in the top quintile pay four times as much as the people in the bottom quintile, it doesn't change much in terms of equality if they earn much more than four times as much.
1.2.4.3.8.6. Pro: With a carbon tax, the top income quintile would pay about four times as much as the bottom quintile \([Borenstein, 2](https://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/papers/WP262.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.9. Con: Multiple studies have demonstrated that concerns over the unfair distributional impact of a shift to a carbon tax are overstated.
1.2.4.3.9.1. Pro: According to a study, while a carbon tax may be regressive, payments will amount to only slightly more than 2% of income for even the poorest decile \([Kolstad, 6](https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/SIEPR_PolicyBrief_Kolstad_v4_2.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.9.1.1. Con: Almost of the fifth of the EU's population [languishes](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion#Income_poverty) in 'income poverty' - or having negligible disposable income. Even a 2% hit is likely to significantly harm the livelihoods of the poorest households.
1.2.4.3.9.2. Pro: According to a study, a carbon tax is far less regressive than is generally assumed when the analysis is done on a lifetime basis even without considering how the revenue generated will be distributed \([Hasset, 167](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41323238.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.9.3. Pro: A study has demonstrated that government policy will ultimately decide whether a carbon tax is regressive, progressive, or neutral \([Gordon, 6](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\).
1.2.4.3.9.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.3.6.
1.2.5. Con: Climate change is a [collective action problem](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/climate-change-global-solution-greenpeace) meaning that the EU will not be able to make a big impact by itself.
1.2.5.1. Pro: [Consequentialist moral theories](https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethics-101/moral-traditions/) hold that the only morally important considerations are the outcomes or consequences of an action.
1.2.5.1.1. Con: By that metric, the EU can substantially reduce its own carbon emissions, even if it can't abolish emissions completely across the world. Consequential moral theories do not operate on absolutes and function on the basis of a realistic course of action.
1.2.5.1.1.1. Pro: The EU is the world’s [third-largest emitter](https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed) of carbon emissions.
1.2.6. Con: The current state of climate change is the result of actions taken by previous generations for which current EU citizens cannot be held responsible.
1.2.6.1. Con: Current actions also contribute to climate change, meaning that current generations can be held responsible.
1.2.6.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.1.1.
1.2.6.1.2. Pro: It is not our fault that the world is how it is, however it is our fault if we allow it to stay that way.
1.2.6.2. Con: Without intervention now, generations succeeding us will continue to pay a higher price and hold responsibility for climate change. Putting [measures in place](https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/adapting-climate-change-no-time-waste) at this stage could help reduce the impact of this perpetual cycle.
1.2.6.2.1. Con: The current generation is not responsible for protecting the welfare and interests of future generations.
1.2.7. Con: The EU only has an obligation to its domestic constituents who are part of the EU and is not beholden to the interests of the global citizenry. Hence, it has no responsibility to tackle global warming.
1.2.7.1. Con: -> See 1.2.4.2.1.
1.2.8. Pro: The EU has a moral obligation to developing countries, which have been disproportionately impacted by climate change.
1.2.8.1. Pro: Climate change has [contributed](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1816020116) to an increase in economic inequality between developed and developing countries.
1.2.8.2. Pro: The poorest countries in the world [face](https://time.com/5575523/climate-change-inequality/) the harshest impacts of climate change.
1.2.8.2.1. Pro: Governments in the developing world do not possess adequate resources to fund research into, and implementation of, climate change initiatives.
1.2.8.2.1.1. Con: [Climate finance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Finance) is provided by developed countries [to assist](https://unfccc.int/topics/climate-finance/the-big-picture/climate-finance-in-the-negotiations) developing countries.
1.2.8.2.1.1.1. Pro: Article 9 of [the Paris Agreement](http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop_auv_template_4b_new__1.pdf) stipulates that developed countries shall provide financial resources to assist developing countries with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the climate change convention \(p. 25\).
1.2.8.2.1.1.2. Pro: Four special funds - the Special Climate Change Fund \([SCCF](https://unfccc.int/topics/climate-finance/resources/reports-of-the-special-climate-change-fund)\), the Least Developed Countries Fund \([LDCF](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/bodies/constituted-bodies/least-developed-countries-expert-group-leg/ldc-portal/least-developed-countries-ldc-fund)\), the Green Climate Fund \([GCF](https://www.greenclimate.fund/home)\), the Adaptation Fund \([AF](https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/funds-and-financial-entities/adaptation-fund)\) - were created under international conventions to assist developing countries.
1.2.8.2.1.1.3. Pro: Public climate finance from developed to developing countries increased from USD 37.9 billion in 2013 to USD 54.5 billion in 2017 \([pg.8](http://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Climate-finance-from-developed-to-developing-countries-Public-flows-in-2013-17.pdf)\).
1.2.8.3. Pro: High income countries, including those in the EU, [contribute](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-by-income-region) the most to carbon emissions. Low-income countries [contribute](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/10/CO2-emissions-by-income-and-region.png) the least.
1.2.8.3.1. Pro: North America, Oceania, Europe, and Latin America have [disproportionately high](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-by-income-region) emissions relative to their population. [Europe](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/10/CO2-emissions-by-income-and-region.png) is home to only ten percent of the world population but emits nearly sixteen percent of CO2.
1.2.8.4. Con: Developing countries are now [responsible](https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions) for 63% of carbon emissions, eclipsing the EU. Hence, the developing countries themselves are responsible for the impacts of climate change.
1.2.8.4.1. Con: -> See 1.2.8.2.1.
1.2.8.4.2. Pro: 21 developed countries have [cut down](https://futureoflife.org/2016/08/05/developing-countries-cant-afford-climate-change/) on carbon emissions between 2011 and 2015, while emissions have continued to increase in the developing world.
1.2.8.4.3. Con: [The cumulative emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions) of EU still exceeds those of developing countries by far.
1.2.8.4.3.1. Pro: The EU-28 emitted almost twice as much as China \(which is by far the biggest developing country\), while [China has approximately 2.7 times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China) as many citizens as [EU-28](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union). In other words, the average EU citizen still emitted over 5 times as much carbon than a citizen in China.
1.2.9. Pro: The EU is disproportionately responsible for the accelerated climate change that threatens the world today.
1.2.9.1. Con: Only one of the countries in the EU is present on the [lists](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change) of current top ten highest emitters of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide.
1.2.9.1.1. Con: While this may be true, the EU's responsibility to mitigate climate change must been seen collectively as opposed to individually.
1.2.9.1.1.1. Pro: While Vermont is the [most](https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/top-10-eco-friendly-states-us.html) eco-friendly state in the United States, the United States is still holistically responsible for its collective carbon footprint, and this responsibility must be partially borne by states such as Vermont.
1.2.9.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.1.1.
1.2.9.3. Pro: Six of the [top ten countries](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change) \(Luxembourg, UK, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia\) with the highest historical emissions per person are part of the EU.
1.2.9.4. Pro: [The Industrial Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution), which began in Britain and spread to other European countries and North America, initiated global warming.
1.2.9.4.1. Con: Britain may have initiated the Industrial Revolution, but [as of 2014](https://blog.ucsusa.org/peter-frumhoff/global-warming-fact-co2-emissions-since-1988-764), more than half of all industrial emissions of carbon dioxide since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution have been released past 1988.
1.2.9.5. Pro: The [polluter pays principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle) holds that where an actor causes pollution then the actor is morally responsible for dealing with the ensuing costs.
1.2.9.5.1. Pro: This is the most fair means to allocate responsibility as it doesn't punish those who are least responsible for the impacts of climate change.
1.2.9.6. Con: It is [difficult to ascertain](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230903326331) what level of pollution the EU itself is responsible for and therefore what duty it has to alleviate climate change.
1.2.9.6.1. Con: There is substantial evidence for the EU's contribution towards climate change.
1.2.9.6.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.1.1.
1.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.1.1.
1.4. Pro: Carbon emissions are the [biggest contributors to climate change](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-causes/) and their reduction should be prioritised the most in the fight against climate change.
1.4.1. Pro: Increased carbon emissions have had devastating consequences for nature, which will only be exacerbated if there is no intervention.
1.4.1.1. Pro: A [number of species](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-animals-science-environment/) are facing the possibility of extinction as a result of environmental changes.
1.4.1.2. Pro: [Ice sheets](https://news.mongabay.com/2019/04/arctic-in-trouble-sea-ice-melt-falls-to-record-lows-for-early-april/) in the Arctic are disappearing, which is [disrupting](https://www.axios.com/arctic-melt-climate-change-canada-e83ec6a3-6061-402f-92c5-4c887aa603fb.html) the entire ecosystem.
1.4.2. Pro: Increased carbon emissions have had devastating consequences for humans, which will only be exacerbated if there is no intervention.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Global warming has lead to an [increase](https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/) in tropical storms and tropical storm intensities, which has caused the loss and uprooting of human life.
1.4.2.1.1. Pro: Worsening climate change could cause hurricanes and cyclones like Cylone Yasi to be 40% [more intense](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/climate-change-hurricanes-study-global-warming).
1.4.2.1.2. Pro: A compilation and analysis of data from 2018 has [revealed](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/2018-natural-disasters-climate-change_n_5c0b1cdfe4b035a7bf5b4479?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJs_irit8TW0NuON4xYzG0E-QfdZa93ei0Ar9Jsz5i5t1CPrkZVQeaf3dvS51z4qd0g8MPflcFkCU7-RqsEvxBfSFh0tmCWwx6BE3vFNBKnsHIob7wTRO9dfiu_wYw-w2hHQKlm5sZ4pt2UobqT1FlYxJjjm-CuWxV_OucbQritu) that climate-change related natural disasters led to hundreds of deaths across the world.
1.4.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.1.1.
1.4.2.3. Pro: Climate change has led to less annual rainfall, less snowpack in the moutains, and less snowmelt which will [reduce fresh water security](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/30/climate-change-water), resulting in an inability to adequately meet human need.
1.4.2.4. Pro: Increasing temperatures and decreased precipitation are causing [major changes](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/07/25/climate-change-food-agriculture/) in our food supply. This is resulting in food scarcity throughout the world.
1.4.2.4.1. Pro: Decreased precipitation and increased temperatures [are responsible for droughts](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/causes-of-drought-climate-change-connection.html) which [threaten](https://www.technologytimes.pk/climatic-impacts-agriculture-livestock/) cattle-grazing and crop-agriculture activities.
1.4.2.4.2. Pro: Constant lack of rain and hot temperatures is likely to contribute to soil erosion and saltification, making previously fertile land [more arid](https://sciencing.com/characteristics-dry-climate-4878.html) in the long term.
1.4.3. Pro: Strengthening of the greenhouse effect is attributable mainly to [increased atmospheric carbon dioxide](https://web.archive.org/web/20101024121935/http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/global_warming/Older/Enhanced_Greenhouse_Effect.html) levels through human activities.
1.4.3.1. Pro: [Greenhouse gases](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases) from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change and global warming since the mid-20th century. [The greenhouse effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere.
1.4.3.1.1. Pro: Global and European annual mean air temperatures[have increased](https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9157-202-0/3.1.pdf) by 0.3-0.6°C since 1900.
1.4.3.2. Pro: Global warming gases in the world's atmosphere are rising, with concentrations up 29 percent [in 2010](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45387320/ns/us_news-environment/t/greenhouse-gases-percent-un-reports/) since the start of the industrial era in 1750. Emissions of carbon dioxide, the most widespread greenhouse gas, were up 39 percent.
1.4.3.3. Pro: Worldwide, net emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities[increased by 35 percent](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions) from 1990 to 2010. Emissions of carbon dioxide, which account for about three-fourths of total emissions, increased by 42 percent over this period.
1.4.3.4. Pro: An increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produces a [positive climate forcing](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing), or warming effect. From 1990 to 2015, the total warming effect from greenhouse gases added by humans to the Earth’s atmosphere increased by 37 percent. The warming effect associated with carbon dioxide alone increased by 30 percent.
1.4.4. Con: Some scientists theorise that global warming is caused by [solar activity](https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming), rather than atmospheric carbon dioxide.
1.5. Con: -> See 1.2.3.2.
1.6. Con: An EU carbon tax is an unfair way to attempt to mitigate climate change.
1.6.1. Con: A carbon tax is a good way to tax the greatest producers of carbon, without putting too much presure on the general public. This makes the carbon tax fair, because you wont need to pick up anyone else's carbon bill besides your own.
1.6.1.1. Con: -> See 1.2.4.3.1.
1.6.1.2. Pro: People are [more likely](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-negative-reinforcement-2795410) to make carbon neutral choices if they will face immediate price consequences.
1.6.1.3. Pro: Individuals make a free conscious choice to consume carbon, therefore it is only fair they face the consequences of this choice.
1.6.1.3.1. Con: Individuals suffer from a lack of suitable alternatives - alternatively sourced products and services are more expensive and harder to access for the average consumer.
1.6.1.4. Con: The cost of the carbon tax can be [passed on to the consumer](https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/expect-carbon-tax-pass-consumers) and push up the prices of products, putting a lot of pressure on the general public.
1.6.1.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.6.1.4.2. Con: -> See 1.2.4.3.6.1.2.
1.6.2. Pro: Carbon tax is an unpopular measure.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Carbon taxes are unpopular in [France](https://www.enca.com/business/carbon-tax-best-way-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-imf), where plans to increase it to €55 from €44.60 recently ignited the [Yellow Vest protest movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement).
1.6.2.2. Con: According to [a recent survey](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190117092556.htm) of people in the United States, India, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia, there is a consistently high level of public support across nations for a global carbon tax if the tax policy is carefully designed.
1.6.2.2.1. Pro: Countries included in this survey such as the [United Kingdom](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-emmisions-tax/carbon-emmisions-tax), already have carbon tax systems set up by the national government.
1.6.3. Con: Reduced air pollution is likely to improve health outcomes disproportionately in low-income communities where pollution mortality and morbidity rates are [highest](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664744/).
1.6.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.1.1.1.1.
1.6.3.2. Pro: [A report](http://datadriven.yale.edu/urban/2018-report/) from [Data-Driven Yale](https://datadrivenlab.org/) [indicates](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/study-low-income-neighborhoods-disproportionately-feel-environmental-burde/543498/) that low-income neighborhoods around the world bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens. The index compared data from 30 global cities and examined five areas of environmental concern: air quality, climate change, water and sanitation, urban ecosystem and transportation. Researchers concluded that although many of the cities performed well on environmental indicators, they didn't achieve results in an equitable way.
1.6.3.2.1. Pro: In 2006 in the UK [this was true](https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/0701110944_AQinequalitiesFNL_AEAT_0506.pdf): "Inequalities in the distribution of pollutant concentrations can be observed for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland for nitrogen dioxide \(NO2\) and particulate matter \(PM10\), and for sulphur dioxide \(SO2\) in England and Northern Ireland For NO2 and PM10, this distribution can largely be explained by the high urban concentrations driven by road transport sources, and the higher proportion of deprived communities in urban areas".
1.6.3.3. Pro: Poor neighborhoods are [less likely](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/study-low-income-neighborhoods-disproportionately-feel-environmental-burde/543498/) to receive greater investments in new or innovative services or urban greening. Such investments are said to reduce pollution and increase citizens' health.
1.6.4. Con: Choosing not to tax carbon means that tax payers will be paying for environmental damages in the future as opposed to the ones who are responsible for the environmental damages.
1.6.4.1. Pro: Giving people the option to pay less for the environmental damage if they contribute to it less is more efficient and fair than forcing everyone in the future to pay for the damage that is caused by the heaviest polluters.
1.6.5. Con: Equality concerns should not be a reason to not solve market failures. Inequality is an issue itself that is best assessed separately and solved through [redistribution policies](https://homepage.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2011_17online.pdf?origin=publication_detail) \(page 25\).
1.6.6. Con: The same arguments that goes for taxing negative externalities goes for subsidising positive externalities. If the government is subsidising education and renewable energy, the poorest will benefit more from these.
1.6.7. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.3.
1.7. Pro: Carbon emissions are negative externalities. Taxing negative externalities for welfare optimisation provide a welfare gain to society even before revenues are spent with the only requirement being that the implementation costs are lower than the revenues.
1.7.1. Con: Often there are costs associated with implementation and maintenance
1.7.1.1. Con: These costs are usually a small fraction tax revenue, which means that the rest of the tax revenue can be spent purely for societal gains trusting that the investment decisions of a government are based around best social return on investment.
1.7.1.1.1. Pro: Since the cost is placed on a price in an existing market, it will not be much different from a tax on gasoline.
1.7.1.1.1.1. Pro: There's nothing to suggest it would be more expensive than other taxes, and the most expensive tax \(congestion charges\) usually max out at [costing 42% of the revenues](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288444162_The_costs_of_implementing_road_pricing_systems).
1.7.1.1.2. Pro: Congestion tolls, which are one of the most expensive charges on externalities, [usually only cost between 19% and 42% of the revenue](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288444162_The_costs_of_implementing_road_pricing_systems).
1.8. Con: Introducing a carbon tax will not lead to a significant reduction of carbon emissions.
1.8.1. Con: A carbon tax would [trigger innovation](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/climate-change-innovation-jobs.pdf) in more sustainable and green technologies which reduce carbon emissions and are beneficial to the economy \(pg 426 - 427\).
1.8.1.1. Pro: A shift towards a sustainable, green economy will create jobs.
1.8.1.1.1. Pro: A move towards low carbon technologies will [create jobs](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/climate-change-innovation-jobs.pdf), as renewable energy production is more labour intensive than conventional energy production \(pg 423\).
1.8.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.4.
1.8.2. Pro: It is unlikely that the carbon price would be set high enough to sufficiently decrease carbon emissions.
1.8.2.1. Pro: Political considerations such as concerns about regressivity, and the need for public support [create incentives](https://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints) for politicians to keep the carbon price low.
1.8.2.1.1. Con: -> See 1.6.2.2.
1.8.2.1.2. Con: Modifying the structure of the carbon tax system can significantly mitigate these concerns.
1.8.2.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.1.1.5.3.
1.8.2.2. Pro: It is [estimated](https://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints) that every country which has a carbon tax is currently pricing carbon too low.
1.8.2.2.1. Pro: In 2018 [only 40% of carbon emissions](https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/effective-carbon-rates-2018_9789264305304-en#page18) from OECD countries were priced over EUR 60 per tonne, which is the price needed to meet the benchmarks in the Paris Agreement \(page 23\).
1.8.2.3. Con: Carbon taxes [tend to have higher prices for carbon](https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp2016-44.pdf) than other policies such as cap and trade schemes because the price is set directly \(pg 6\).
1.8.2.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.1.1.2.
1.8.2.4. Pro: [Studies](https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp2016-44.pdf) have found that consumers are willing to pay far less on environmental policies than the true social cost of carbon \(pg 7\).
1.8.2.4.1. Con: This is due to an [informational asymmetry](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1398/f54b3e621be9ef46f35259e39f01ffe2ad64.pdf) - government sanctioned awareness programs about the true cost of climate change can [significantly mitigate this effect.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5636867/)
1.8.2.5. Pro: It is difficult to price carbon, given that even [economists disagree](http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/PricingCarbonRegulation2013.pdf) about the true social cost of carbon.
1.8.2.5.1. Con: A carbon tax does not need to have an accurate carbon price in order to decrease carbon emissions.
1.8.2.5.1.1. Con: The [current tax](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17584376/carbon-tax-congress-republicans-cost-economy) in the US on carbon consumption has been shown to be ineffective at reducing emissions, whereas a model using a higher rate of carbon tax is predicted to produce a more positive change.
1.8.2.5.2. Pro: The [social cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cost) of carbon could be anywhere [between $10 to $200 per ton](http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/PricingCarbonRegulation2013.pdf).
1.8.2.6. Pro: The [High Level Commission on Carbon Pricing](https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/effective-carbon-rates-2018_9789264305304-en#page16) found that carbon prices should be at least USD $80 per tonne of carbon by 2020 to reach the goals of the [Paris Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement) \(pg 15\).
1.8.3. Con: -> See 1.2.4.3.5.1.1.
1.8.4. Con: Not only is a carbon tax-effective, but Economists also agree that a carbon tax is the most efficient way of reducing carbon emissions. \([1](https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/) [2](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-taxes-ii/) [3](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-tax/) [4](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/climate-change-policies/) [5](https://web.archive.org/web/20101029221927/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-2.html).\)
1.8.5. Con: [Economists agree](https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/) that a carbon tax "offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary".
1.8.6. Pro: High carbon industries will likely just shift production to countries where there is no carbon tax, rather than reducing their emissions.
1.8.6.1. Pro: [Research](https://www.iedm.org/81240-carbon-market-chasing-away-jobs-and-capital-without-reducing-ghgs) has shown that carbon emissions are often displaced rather than reduced by the imposition of a carbon tax in the developed world.
1.8.6.1.1. Con: These transfers only account for [a fraction](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage) of the rise in carbon emissions in developing countries. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically.
1.8.6.1.2. Con: [A study](http://www.reeem.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/3.2-Case-Study-on-Carbon-Leakage-and-Competitiveness.pdf) \(pg 28\) on the EU ETS found that the majority of carbon leakage from the EU did not go to BRIC countries which tend to have [low environmental regulations](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/brics-economies-emerging-markets-global-values).
1.8.6.2. Pro: This is likely to create further negative externalities in the countries they leave from, such as greater unemployment and more dependence on the welfare state.
1.8.6.2.1. Con: [Research](https://www.hcn.org/articles/economy-do-climate-policies-have-a-negative-effect-on-jobs) in the US predicts that a carbon price of $40 per ton would only increase the unemployment rate by 0.3%.
1.8.6.3. Con: [The EU has the biggest economy and market in the world.](http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/) Industries would lose more money by moving than by staying and paying the tax.
1.8.6.3.1. Con: In the past, the EU has rolled back on climate policies after threats issued by industry leaders in the fossil fuel industry of an ['exodus'](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/eu-dropped-climate-policies-after-bp-threat-oil-industry-exodus) from Europe.
1.8.6.3.1.1. Con: Climate change is a [global issue](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know) and every country, including countries people from EU are migrating to, is experiencing a diplomatic push towards climate-change friendly policies.
1.8.6.4. Con: Other factors such as the cost of labour, government regulations, quality of institutions and proximity to customers are often far more significant in a company's decision whether to move production overseas \([p. 7](http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/210741468340179227/pdf/wps6235.pdf)\).
1.8.6.5. Con: Most carbon emissions come from [transport, agriculture and \(in some countries\) power supply](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector). All of them cannot "just be moved to other countries".
1.8.6.6. Con: A pareto optimal world would not do anything to fight climate change. If this was the main argument in all countries about anything that affects other countries than their own, we would not get anywhere.
1.8.6.7. Con: Governments actively work together to create deals that enforce collective work against climate change.
1.8.6.7.1. Pro: The Paris Agreement is a good example of such collective work that was signed by 196 parties with [legal binding](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement)
1.8.6.8. Con: All countries should in theory have a carbon tax
1.8.7. Con: According to research, [carbon emissions](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases) could fall by about 40 percent below 2005 levels and 25 percent below current policy scenario levels by 2030 if a carbon tax were instituted \([Gordon, 8](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CGEP_SummaryOfCarbonTaxModeling.pdf)\).
1.8.7.1. Pro: This reduction is precisely the required amount - Global CO2 emissions [need](https://phys.org/news/2019-02-co2-emissions-economies-fall-due.html) to decrease by about a quarter by 2030 to limit climate change well below the red-line of 2 °C.